4 ms·

How is making vehicles less likely to kill a person in the event that they are hit by one "no solution"?

• chiefalchemist 2y ago
  It's a band-aid on a symptom. It's not addressing the root problem. In other words, it's putting a lot of effort into the wrong direction. We have a *bad* habit of falling those such "solutions" in the USA. People need to stop and think, "Is this addressing a symptom or the root problem?" A classic example is Trump. The narrative is, get rid of Trump and a world of unicorns and rainbows returns. Nah. Don is a symptom. He could disappear tomorrow, and the underlying issues that fuel his efforts will still be there. Someone else will step into his shoes and nothing will have changed. Unfortunately, too many people - "leaders", politicians, "journalists", and voters - are stupid. They don't understand the difference between correlation (symptom) and causation (root problem). Another great example is Covid and the jab. Sure the vax helped a lot of people. But the fact remains, comorbidities were a significant contributor to Covid deaths. Still are. Has the American diet and lifestyle changed at all? Nah. Why? Because the root problem of comorbidities was never surfaced. Even without Covid we'd be better off with changes in diet and lifestyle... but we're worried about trucks and pedestrians. So silly.
  • stephenr 2y ago
    ... So by your logic seat belts are "silly" too? People don't crash because they're not restrained. If we just stopped people crashing they wouldn't need seat belts.